Alarid v. Biomet, Inc et al
ORDER Denying as moot 104 Plaintiffs Motion in Limine To Exclude Collateral Sources, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/3/2016.(evana, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02667-REB-NYW
ALFONSO A. ALARID,
BIOMET, INC., BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS, LLC, and BIOMET MANUFACTURING, LLC,
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
The matter before me is Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine To Exclude Collateral
Sources [#104],1 filed January 14, 2016. By their response ([#124], filed February 1, 2016),
defendants state they agree that evidence of collateral sources of benefits is not admissible, a
position of which they informed plaintiff’s counsel well prior to the filing of this motion.2 The
motion therefore is moot and will be denied on that basis.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine To Exclude
Collateral Sources [#104], filed January 14, 2016, is denied as moot.
Dated February 3, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
“[#104]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
Given defendants’ concession, it is unclear why plaintiff felt compelled to file a motion. Seeking
affirmative relief from the court under these circumstances wastes both party and judicial resources at a
critical point in the case. Thus, and aside from the fact that the court strongly discourages motions in
limine in general, see REB Civ. Practice Standard IV.E.1., this motion in particular appears to have been
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?